And that represents the exact same "hockey-stick" reconstruction that is represented by the blue line in the plot that I posted above (i.e. Mann-Bradley-Hughes 1999). Exactly the same.

No, it doesn't. That's why I posted it, because you didn't. You posted something without a legend that looked like a plate of spaghetti that someone dropped. And had two blue lines, + a turquoise for good measure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caerbannog

The temperature graph in the 1990 IPCC report is based upon historical temperature records in central England. As such, it represents the temperature history only of one small part of England. This is in contrast to the MBH "hockey-stick", which was a characterization of the average temperature record of the *entire planet*.

A discredited characterization, at that.

So, I posted a faulty graph, to counter another faulty graph. Which one got the most play? The hockey stick, of course, much more dramatic. Showed much more of a "problem."

With respect, I got my plots from a google image search. If I clicked on a website that doesn't sit well with you, then my regrets.

You can say what you want about global warming skeptics, but important facts remain that make this anything from a settled science, and by and large American voters are starting to doubt the endless hyperbole from Al Gore and his sycophants.

Mainly, computer models cannot and do not take into accurate account the impact of our oceans, clouds, the efficiency of precipitation at removing heat from the atmosphere, and other myriad factors that affect our climate.

These multiple feedbacks, and others, may increase or decrease our temperature, based on the impact of increased CO2, a trace component in our atmosphere. Increase the temperature, maybe more seawater evaporates, maybe the vapor goes into a cirrus cloud which reflects heat to space, or maybe its a cumulus cloud which traps it near the surface. It really isn't known, and what is not known, cannot be predicted, especially forward into the next 100 years.

Considering the enormous gaps in the computer models, and our reliance on those computer models to justify drastic action to correct an unproven problem, it is no wonder that more American voters now consider our warming trend to be natural, rather than man made.